In my previous post I provided some comments on one of my favorite biblical books, Ecclesiastes. Here I will continue my comments, with some remarks on the topic of the thread, the view of the afterlife in the book, a view unlike what you find in *most* of the Hebrew Bible. Again, this is taken from my book God’s Problem.

******************************************************************

For the author of Ecclesiastes “traditional” wisdom (such as one finds in the book of Proverbs) was inherently flawed — another reason I like him so much. It simply is not true (as Proverbs insists) that the righteous are rewarded in life and the wicked perish. As the author of Ecclesiastes states: “In my vain life I have seen everything; there are righteous people who perish in their righteousness, and there are wicked people who prolong their life in their evil doing” (7:15); “there are righteous people who are treated according to the conduct of the wicked, and there are wicked people who are treated according to the conduct of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity” (8:14). The reason it is all hevel (vanity; ephemeral) is because everyone dies and that’s the end of the story: “Everything that confronts them is vanity, since the same fate comes to all, to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to those who sacrifice and those who do not sacrifice. As are the good, so are the sinners…. the same fate comes to everyone” (9:1-3). And even in this life, before death, rewards and punishments are not meted out according to merit, but everything is dependent on chance:

Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all. For no one can anticipate the time of disaster. Like fish taken in a cruel net, and like birds caught in a snare, so mortals are snared at a time of calamity, when it suddenly falls upon them. (9:11-12)

Nor, for this author, should it be thought that there is a good afterlife for those who have been good, wise, faithful, and righteous, but punishment for those who die in their sins. There are no …

The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you want to read on … JOIN!!! It won’t cost much, it will give a lot, and every dime goes to charity.

You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.

Comments

As you noted in your April 5 post, the insights of Ecclesiastes run contrary to traditional views that say “life is basically meaningful and good, that evil is punished, and right behavior is rewarded.” Was there any controversy about Ecclesiastes being accepted as sacred scripture?

It was one of the latest of the books to be admitted, but since it was thought to be written by Solomon I don’t think there was a *huge* dispute. But I don’t know for sure — maybe someone on the blog does?

Technically it’s the Adversary who inflicts suffering on Job and his family, and God merely allows him to do so, to prove a point, which isn’t a whole lot better, and pretty sure nobody was supposed to believe any of that actually happened. It’s a metaphor for why bad things happen to good people. The evil that happens to us in life is not a punishment. It’s a test. I think Darwin might agree. Technically, there’s not much of anything about the afterlife in Job, either, is there?

Ecclesiastes would probably have been at least somewhat famliar with what the Egyptians and particularly the Egyptian rulers did to try and insure a happy afterlife. Perhaps the most inspired vanity the world has ever seen.

Live life as if we were being tested to see if we make the grade. But surely part of that test would be how good we are at truly enjoying what life has to offer–and at sharing our blessings with others.

And didn’t Jesus say he had come that we might have life, and have it more abundantly?

Dr. Ehrman, I feel compelled to point out that Qoheleth doesn’t say there isn’t an afterlife. Rather, he says we don’t know whether there is an afterlife, but when he looks at all the world around him, he can’t help but conclude, to quote the late George Carlin, “The longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize something is f***ed up. Something is wrong here.” I think Qoheleth came to the same conclusion as George Carlin. This is supposed to be a just world created by a just God? Yeah, well, all evidence points to the contrary.

My sense is that if pressed the author would say he’s agnostic on the quesiton, but leans toward the idea there is nothing after life: we become dust again, as seen especially in 9:4-5 (better a living dog than a dead lion!) (“the dead know nothing…”)

Thought-provoking insights. The Bible itself does seem to give contrasting views on the “afterlife.” I’m curious if you see “sheol” as the equivalent of “hades” in the New Testament. (A state of deadness and no perception.) That seems to be the case. As you point out, Ecclesiastes seems to say all living persons are destined for sheol/hades, and this also appears to be the case with Revelation, where hades “gives up all of the dead” that are in it. But in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (I definitely see it as a parable), Christ seems to equate hades with a place of conscious suffering, and “Abraham’s bosom” with a place of rest and contentment.

Though, I have to say, your view of nothing after this life is a bit dismal! I’m not saying Christianity has it right with its view of “heaven” as literally worshipping Jesus forever, but I think the Bible is much more profitable when digested quasi-literally, and much more so allegorically. I’m not sure if you’ve ever studied near-death experience testimonials, but if you do (NOT just Christian experiences), it will definitely cause some contemplation about there being something much bigger going on in the grand scheme than just this earthly life.

My impression is that (pre-hellenic) Hades was where everyone went, except a few favored by the gods. Persephone spends several months a year in Hades not as punishment, but to explain winter (OK, she ate a few pomegranate seeds). Most dead people drank the waters of Lethe and forgot their life.

I’m also not aware of any Greek thinking (again, pre-hellenic) where those, like Sisyphus, who were punished in Hades were punished for ethical lapses, but because they did something to annoy the gods.

Hades isn’t a place of punishment in Homer. For instance, Odysseus pulls the shades of great heros such as Achilles from Hades. I think it’s significant that the Greeks had basically three “underworlds”: Hades, Tartarus and Erebus. While Hades and Erebus were not especially associated with post-mortem punishment and torture until the classical age, Tartarus was often singled out particularly for that function from the very beginning. (In Plato’s theology, Tartarus essentially serves as his Hell.) The closest underworld comparison to Sheol might be Erebus, a region of abysmal darkness and oblivion. If Tartarus is Greek Hell, Erebus could be thought of as Greek Purgatory. I guess it depends on which Greek writer you read. Some see the three as interchangeable; some see them as distinct.

It is here that believer and atheist can meet. We do good because it is good and because it may relieve suffering, not because of a reward now or later. We can follow the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 25, where we do it even “unto the least of these.” If one loves because he believes God wants us to do so, that is fine. If another loves because he believes there is no God, and if there is to be any love at all then we have to do it, that is fine. If the believer is correct and there is something beyond this life that is fine. If the atheist is correct in saying this is all there will be, that is fine. We cannot change the outcome whatever it may be. But we can make this world a kinder, more comfortable place both for ourselves and others. Ultimately that is all we can do, but that is quite a lot. The rest of the stuff probably does not matter very much anyway.

After Wednesday’s blog, I read the Wikipedia article on Epicurus and some editor has added a whole section about the apparent etymological relationship between the Greek philosopher and the Hebrew Epikoros. Is that found in “the teacher’s” words yet, and are the connotations of epikoros here or in other parts of the Tanakh really negative?

I haven’t looked at the article, but “epikoros” is not a Hebrew word. The Hebrew title of the book is Qoheleth. (the book *does* though have a number of things in common with Epicurean philosophy; it’s one of the reasons for dating it many centuries after Solomon)

Technically, “epikoros” has become a Hebrew word; the rabbis used it (and it is still used to today) to describe a type of apostate. But they got the word from the Greek philosopher Epicurus (whom the rabbis misunderstood, in my opinion).

Which makes it all the more interesting that they allowed what is, probably, an expression of epicurean philosophy into the Tanach. I have to think there has to be more than that its authorship was ascribed to Solomon; I’ll look around.

Martin Shields wrote a book on this topic (online at https://books.google.com/books?id=YIpUQpqWn1QC&pg=PA2&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false) which first discusses a couple of theories. One is that authorship of Eccl. is ascribed to Solomon and was included for that reason. The problem with that is that other works also attributed to Solomon were not – specifically, the Psalms of Solomon, although I have to point out that Pss Sol is much later than Ecclesiastes, probably 1st cent BCE. Shields also cites b. Shabb. 30b; Rav yehudah b’rav Shmuel says the sages tried to suppress Eccl. because its statements contradict each other. So the rabbis then engaged in one of their favorite games: resolving contradictions. And the Gemara concludes that the beginning and ending verse of Ecclesiastes merit inclusion in the canon.

Shields says that his book will argue for the position that Eccl. was included in order “to discredit the wisdom movement” on the period. In his view, the rabbis looked at Eccl. as representative of the wisdom movement’s pessimism and skepticism – who realizes in the end that he must “revere God and observe his commandments (Eccl. 12:13). I haven’t read the book, just the intro, but I will say that, on the surface at least, his argument does make sense.

0

0

talmooreApril 9, 2017

One of the interesting ironies of Qoheleth is that he’s espousing views that are essentially Epicurean, but, in the Talmud, the Rabbis specifically say that of the Jews who will not have “a portion in ‘Olam ha-Ba (the “Coming Age”, i.e. the messianic paradise) are the following: Those who say the Resurrection of the Dead is not found in the Torah, those who say the Torah does not come from God, and the Epicureans (Sanhedrin 90a). And yet, Qoheleth is scripture. Try to square that circle!

Evil, pain, suffering … why ??? There are probably folks who thank God for sparing the life of one in that recent bus crash tragedy where 13 of 14 people were killed by a young kid who was texting while driving. Really?? I do believe in God and regardless of all this, he is in control … and am currently of the opinion that like our thinking is to that of, say, an ant, God’s thinking is infinitely more powerful than ours. Thus, we can not begin to understand the why. I have also come to the belief that when our brain ceases to function and life can no longer be sustained in our mortal bodies, “we” return to God. I put a lot of stock in this biblical narrative …. ‘Isaiah 55:8-(NIV) 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” This, to me, explains a lot.

The theology of ordinary people can be quite conflicted and contradictory (not that highly educated people are necessarily better)–why thank God for sparing one person on the bus–why not thank him for taking the others up to heaven with him? Why does any believer fear death, as nearly all of them self-evidently do? That doesn’t prove or disprove anything, nor does it prove they have no faith, but it certainly does indicate they are far from certain of what’s awaiting them in the next world. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard some longtime churchgoer, when asked how he/she is, say not that well, but ‘better than the alternative.’ What alternative? Paradise?

I don’t think we, as a species, are ever going to work this out. I do think that we’ve seen religiosity decline when life expectancy increases. It was very hard for people who had little chance of living to a ripe old age, or enjoying many of the better things in life, to accept this was all they were going to get. And for so many millions around the world, it still is. And we should remember that. Is there life after death? For the poor, a better question would be “Is there life before death?”

Most people don’t know what it’s like to really suffer, and they don’t want to know. If your friend or family member gets sick, statistically your most likely reaction will be to abandon them. What keeps me going is knowing that one day it will end. The greatest mercy God ever showed was to make everything hevel.

What we today would call orthodox Judaism was a much later development (well after the New Testament). The book itself appears to have had a single author, but an editor added some bits — including the final two verses.

13The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

MUCH later! I’m not sure whether one can speak of “orthodox” Judaism prior to the XVIII cent. and the Enlightenment, though I might listen to an argument pushing it back to the 1650s and the start of the Chassidic movement.

1. One of the things that quickly became apparent to me during my medical internship decades ago is that bad stuff happens to both good and bad people and prayer does not seem to alter this. That was very disappointing to learn.

2 Now that I am older, it is clear that things that used to matter a lot to me, such as job problems and/or promotions, no longer matter at all.

Eat, drink and be merry, for life is short. Can I get an amen on that one!
On April 3rd was the second anniversary of the passing of my father. I still mourn him. He was truly a wonderful, selfless, loving father and husband. Wiping a tear from my eye has been daily practice just thinking of him for over two years. He was a strong and healthy man for 83 years of life. Married for over 60 years. We decided, my Mom and wife and I that we would care for him at home and not move him to a nursing home. A battle was raging in his once healthy body between Alzheimer’s and Lymphoma.It was tough. Really tough. It went quicker than most, 2 years from diagnosed. It was the most painful thing to watch my Dad go through, and my Mom go through at the same time.
I seemed to have somewhat of an epiphany after his passing, and that was:
we’re not getting out of here without any pain. The pain you under go as the dying, the pain that your family and friends endure after and sometimes during the slower passings. All painful. Emotionally unforgettable. Suffering is just an extension of pain. A prolonging. Nobody escapes!
NOBODY! Not even the “son of God”.
Could that be the simple underlying message of the whole story of Jesus?

I really admire you and your family for caring for your father – it’s incredibly tough on the sufferer and those around them (also suffering!). Alzheimer’s is, in many ways, worse for those who are doing the caring.

Perhaps for mailbag consideration: A couple weeks ago, you said in a blog comment that (for you) meditation “seems to have the same emotional/personal effect of prayer.” How did you learn to meditate? What references did you consult, if any? Thanks!

Thank you for bringing Ecclesiastes to my attention. Much as I say I have “studied” the bible, it’s clear I have not paid as much attention here as I have to say, Leviticus. Now I see what I have been missing.

I especially like the view that, however it was created, the world is here for us to experience, with all the joys as well as the pain and suffering. It is up to us to make the most of it.

Which brings me to a question you might take up in a future post. What do you make of Edgar Cayce, Brian Weiss and others who posit that our spirits our destined to repeat the journey (ie life) over and over until we are somehow perfected and return to God.

“Even though there are people (lots of people!) who claim to know what happens to us when we die, the truth is that none of us knows, and none of us ever will ‘know,’ until it’s too late for our knowledge to do us any good. My own suspicion is that the Teacher was right, that there is no afterlife and that this life is all there is.”

It’s true that none of us *knows*, or – in this life – ever will. I’ll go so far as to say I *believe* reincarnation is a fact (that’s pretty far, for me)…but hey, all I know absolutely is *cogito ergo sum*.

My problem with Ecclesiastes is that the author writes as if he *does* think he “knows,” with absolute certainty.

I’m still on the fence regarding the truth of some kind of theism. But, as Epicurus would probably say, it does often seem to me that it would be much better (more relaxing if nothing else) to simply accept that this life is all there is than to spoil it by constant worry about the possibility of terrible punishment in an afterlife. I think that must be one of the things that the harsher atheists are getting at when they claim that religion can poison life.

i just finished reading your post under the title : Christians Who Thought Jesus Was Adopted by God:
the thing which i wanted to know is whether The article you posted is a suggestive, that is not factual. and is just possibility .

Here is the thing the article is suggesting that adoptionism is possibility it is not a confirmation. you are giving a perspective of adoptionism. Suggestive view , you are not endorsing it but merely citing that it is a possibility

I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion that the attribution of Ecclesiastes (and the Song of Songs) to Solomon was was simply weeze concocted by scribes whose aesthetic sense overcame their piety because these writings were just too dang good not to include in the canon. Perhaps artistic merit is insufficiently appreciated as a criterion for inclusion.

Yes I understand the reason for the traditional attribution but these books could not have actually been written by Solomon, right? So we are dealing with forgeries. But given Solomon’s reputation there must have been other books attributed to him that did not make it into the canon. So would attribution have been enough for inclusion? I’m speculating (no paper will be forthcoming) that the deciding factor here was artistic merit. Whether or not the scribes thought that Solomon wrote these works I bet they knew a good book when they saw it.

Surely this is just the teachers understanding at that time , which reflected a lot of peoples thinking it doesn’t mean it is fixed . Abraham started his faith in the promised land acting shamanistically (meeting with God under a terebinth tree) this didn’t stay fixed and was changed by the Torah , Joseph asking for his bones to be taken, had some inkling of an afterlife and wanted to appear in the right place , then came exile to Babylon and exposure to their ideas of demons and afterlives, this was incorporated into Israels understanding and is seen in Jesus day. So Is God allowing faith to develop little by little , and is there more to be revealed. John the Baptist was asked if He was the Messiah, or Elijah..or the prophet…and no NT writer declares Jesus as the prophet..Messiah yes..and Jesus declares John as Elijah..so who is the prophet and what message will be added to our faith ?

Aren’t you going to say anything about “The spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Eccl. xii. 7)? My understanding is that there is quite much theology build upon it by Jews, Kabbalist, Gnostics and Christians for example here http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13933-soul It would be interesting to hear your version of it. Why doesn’t it refer to any afterlife in your thinking?

The real difficult in reading ancient texts is not to import our modern views into them. When *we* think of a “spirit returning to God” we think of our individual consciousness surviving death and going to heaven. But that’s probably not what ancients would have thought. Instead: life comes to the body from God. When it dies, so does the person. The life force itself returns to God, but not the person. (God breathes life into the body; when the breath leaves the body, it returns to God.) (And by the way, if one takes the text in the modern literal sense that hte “person” returns to God, note, it RETURNS: that would have to mean that people pre-existed their birth and came into this life after living as a conscious being in heaven. Not many people actually think that)

I do see your view reasonable but “If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.”

You said that…

> “Not many people actually think that”

I think this is very interesting argument. I assume that Gnostics did belie in that. They were not many but they seemed to belie in some kind of pre-existence of the soul similarly to modern jews.

But let’s limit the analysis for christians…

Firstly, what should be the benchmark for the christian beliefs? Naturally, you are writing mainly for the US readers. However, majority of the christians were and still are catholics – globally.

Secondly, how do we know what the different christian denominations belief? My theory is that it is transmitted the most clearly in the liturgy of the various denominations.

I have googled that catholic funeral liturgy apparently says…

“Kindly and graciously take to yourself
the soul of our brother N.,
as he returns to seek mercy from you,
the very fountain of compassion and love.
[…]
Until the day when it joins the body once again
[…]
we are dust and unto dust we shall return.
But the Lord Jesus Christ will
[…]
raise up his body on the last day.”

I’m a lutheran and my funeral liturgy says nothing about the soul. It only has the latter part as Luther subscribed the idea of the soul sleep…

“For dust you are and to dust you will return.
Jesus Christ, our Savior, will raise you up at the last day.”

My point being is that there seems to be nothing said about person or consciousness of the soul remaining while it waits for the last day with god in catholicism (and certainly not in lutheranism). In addition, the catholic liturgy says “as he returns”. Returning to god doesn’t seem to be any issue for catholics.

As I may have mentioned on this board already, the title of this comic references a believed-to-be late-pagan, Boethius, who wrote “The Consolation of Philosophy”, a work that sounds a lot like Bart’s description of Ecclesiastes.

Archives

The Triumph of Christianity combines deep knowledge and meticulous research in an eye-opening, immensely readable narrative that upends the way we think about the single most important cultural…Learn More

Bart D. Ehrman uses the latest research on memory and oral traditions to challenge how much we really know about Jesus from the Gospels. In Jesus Before the Gospels, he investigates the…Learn More

Bart D. Ehrman Discussion Forum

Don’t forget, when you join the “The Bart Ehrman Blog,” membership includes access to a very active discussions forum password secured for members only. While Bart normally cannot moderate the forum due to limited time, it provides members the opportunity to bounce thoughts off each other, to discuss recent posts by Bart, or any number of other insightful and topical discussions. You don’t want to miss out on this unique interaction feature!

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since April 2012, the blog has raised over $400,000 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations!

This is not for membership registration. Please click REGISTER on top bar.